Tricky said:
... Penn Gilette and Richard Dawkins brought up the point that one reason we have religious extremists is because we have religious moderates...
If we are sanguine about "good people" who espouse unsupported ideas, then do we tacitly give the nod to other unsupported ideas? Is it the extremity that is important, should any irrational belief should be challenged?
... If anything, "soft theism" is more dangerous because it creates the environment where we tolerate book burners and doctor-killers and creationists with hardly a shrug.
[color=f7f7f7]Apart from my fervent belief that renata talks to me telepathically on Sunday mornings and provides me with puzzle answers,[/color] I consider myself a reasonably skeptical (and reasonably rational) person. I'd like to point out that I am a skeptic
because of my religious beliefs and religious upbringing. Not despite -- because.
Could I have turned out a skeptic without being religious? Certainly. I am by no means saying religion is the only route to healthy skepticism, simply that it is
a route.
But let's lay that aside for another time, and get to your main point. You seem to be arguing that (a) god doesn't exist, so (b) belief in god is irrational and thus (c) leads to, causes, or supports other irrational beliefs and actions (such as the beliefs and actions of religious extremists) . I don't agree that belief in god is irrational, but let's suppose for the moment it is. I contend that, even if belief in god is irrational, the existence of religious moderates and liberals is desirable and beneficial to the cause of rationality.
Why? Because I believe that a diverse population, with many
bridges between groups, is more conducive to reasoned discussion (and the eventual triumph of rationality) than a sharply polarized population.
Let's suppose (a) you're right that belief in god is irrational, and (b) you manage to convince a large number of religious liberals of that, and convert them to atheism (or agnosticism). You have now created a much more polarized situation, one in which I think you will find it
harder rather than easier to resolve differences with those on "the other side".
Taking just one issue, prayer in schools, I think an opposition coalition made up of atheists and of religious liberals is much stronger than one of equivalent size made up solely of atheists. (Religious conservatives would probably
prefer to face the latter type of opposition. It would make it easier for them to believe, and to convince others, that it is only "godless atheists" who oppose prayer in school and other coerced religious activity.)
If it is only atheists who oppose such activity (which would be the effect of your converting religious moderates and liberals to atheism), then it is easier for religious conservatives to dismiss the opposition as
these people don't believe in god so they want to deny everyone else the right to worship god. They would be incorrect in ascribing that motive to atheists -- but without common ground to be able to communicate with each other, they are not likely to get to know atheists well enough to learn and accept that they have misread your motivation.
The existence of people like me who are sincerely religious, but who do not think coerced prayer is godly, is not necessarily a
harder problem for them to deal with than atheistic opposition, but it is an
additional problem. I think the more diverse the opposition is to anything, the harder it becomes to dismiss that opposition.
Another advantage to diversity is that it is harder to characterize the opposition as a monolithic enemy (and to hate that enemy uniformly). In feeling themselves in opposition to
godless atheists, they may then feel a certain kinship with us
godful non-atheists (who at least have belief in god in common) and thus be able to listen to what we are saying better and perhaps begin to get a glimmer of what we are trying to communicate. (Or, conversely, in feeling themselves in opposition to us
false religionists, they may come to feel more able to talk with you atheists, who are merely
lacking correct belief rather than
holding false ones, and thus their antagonism to us may help them be less antagonistic to you.)
In other words, it doesn't bother me at all to live in world where there are people who see things differently than I do. In fact, I rather like it and think it is desirable (even though, of course, I am right and they are wrong
). I would much rather have a world in which it was encouraged for there to be many different perspectives, many different ways of looking at the same thing, than a world where there was pressure for everyone to hold the same
right view.
You further said this to MLynn:
